What if Literacy Instruction Went Beyond Building Knowledge?

In classrooms across the country, teachers are rethinking how students build reading comprehension — not just how they decode words, but how they make meaning from text. That shift is part of a larger movement toward the science of reading, a body of multidisciplinary research that outlines how children learn to read most effectively. Pedagogy in the science of reading emphasizes explicit instruction in core components of literacy: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.

A key concept within this framework is knowledge building — helping students develop background information that supports comprehension. Research shows that students with more background knowledge tend to understand texts more easily. Brain science suggests background knowledge reduces the cognitive load required to make sense of complex material, freeing up mental space for deeper learning and synthesis.

But for Dr. Barrie Olson, vice president of reading curriculum and instruction at Curriculum Associates, knowledge building is only the beginning. Olson is an experienced curriculum design and professional learning expert. She believes students should engage in a “cycle of knowledge,” where they not only gather information in the service of building knowledge but also create something with it and communicate their ideas to others. And she is not alone — many literacy experts emphasize the importance of moving beyond knowledge acquisition to synthesis and communication in the classroom.

EdSurge spoke with Olson about this evolving approach to literacy instruction, how it builds on the science of reading and why it can deepen student thinking, engagement and learning.

EdSurge: What is the cycle of knowledge, and how does it differ from knowledge building?

Olson: When I talk about going beyond knowledge building, I’m referring to the fact that classroom instruction often treats knowledge as static. But it’s constantly evolving. And so I’m really interested in not what kids know, but what they do with what they know.

Can you elaborate on the three Cs of the cycle of knowledge: consume, create and communicate?

Anytime you put information in front of somebody, the first thing they’re going to do is consume it — by reading, watching, listening or engaging in some way.

But we want them to move beyond consuming. We want them to create with that knowledge — that’s synthesis. Knowledge doesn’t exist in a vacuum. As soon as we learn something new, we’re already connecting it to other things we’ve read, things we’ve heard, what we already know. We’re listening to our peers, adjusting our thinking. That’s the act of creating through synthesis — it’s about pulling all those threads together and making something new out of them.

Finally, we want them to communicate that information. We don’t want them to just do this thoughtful synthesis work and keep it in their heads. We want them to take it in, think about it, do something with it and then share it out.

What might this look like in practice?

Imagine you’re a fourth grade teacher kicking off a unit on volcanoes. You want your students to write about Mount St. Helens. Traditionally, you might start by giving them a few articles about volcanoes, build some general background knowledge and then have them read the main text — maybe a nonfiction piece — before asking them to write an essay about volcanoes. It’s a straightforward approach: build knowledge first, then apply it.

But in a unit designed around the cycle of knowledge, it works a little differently. You actually begin with the anchor text — the one that sparks curiosity and raises big questions. Then you work backward: What do students need to know to truly engage with this text? What gaps do we need to fill? Yes, they still learn about volcanoes, but the learning is focused and intentional. And as a teacher, I’m thinking: How do I make this come alive for them?

And then it’s about asking them to share their knowledge in an authentic way. In this case, maybe the students become volcanologists. They create a multimedia presentation to explain what happened at Mount St. Helens and present it to a group of third graders. They’re not just summarizing facts — they’re taking on a role, applying what they’ve learned, and communicating it the way a real scientist might. That’s when you see the power of synthesis and purpose come together in the classroom.

How does this approach impact student learning?

In this kind of curriculum, students move through a cycle of reading, synthesizing ideas, and communicating what they’ve learned in meaningful ways. This is how literacy works in the real world, and ultimately, that’s the purpose of literacy education — helping students understand the world and respond in meaningful ways. Knowledge building is just the first step; what comes after is where students really get to use their brains.

We have kids who are sitting in class thinking, “Well, what does my teacher want me to say? There’s a right answer and I just need to figure out what it is,” as opposed to, “I have all this information, I understand the information, now what’s the thing I want to share?”

Also [with a cycle of knowledge approach], teachers make learning goals explicit for their students. Oftentimes, when discussing engagement in education, it’s this surface level engagement: If I choose a cool topic that I think my kids will like, they’ll be engaged.

That may or may not be true. If your student doesn’t know what they’re supposed to be doing, they will likely not be truly engaged. Conversely, when students know where they’re headed and why it matters, you get that engagement.

This type of instruction also creates discreet check-in points during which teachers consider the knowledge and skills students need at each stage. It’s true backward design: If this is where we want kids to end, what do they need to know along the way? Let’s make sure they understand those pieces before moving forward.

Why should teachers embrace the concepts you’ve described?

A word I didn’t use a lot, but that’s central to this, is thinking. When we talk about literacy, we focus on reading and writing. But the most critical piece is the thinking. The thinking process is not visible unless you emphasize it and give students opportunities to show how they synthesize their ideas. The thinking piece is what connects it all.

We often think about reading and writing as outputs rather than drivers. But in literacy, thinking is the crux of it.